Houston Marathon goes to lottery entry, not met with unanimous approval.

[Andrew A.]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/run/7045239.html

I have no problem with it as it is certainly no worse than the field filling up in July, six months before race day.  At least it means that the organizers are looking into alternatives and perhaps at some point will institute measures to ensure that local competitive runners are granted some provision that will allow them to enter the race fewer than two months ahead of race day. 

[Ryan]

I really don't care between lottery and first come first serve. Of course, I don't have a personal stake in it either way as I have no intention of running. What I would like to see, as you mention, is for some way for at least local competitive runners, if not competitive runners from any location, to be able to commit to the event in the final 2-3 months. Maybe a set of fairly strict qualifying times that allow guaranteed entry as long as one registers at least a month in advance or something like that.

[Andrew A.]

In the article, it is noted that the HARRA (and its predecessor) has long used the marathon as the final race in their fall GP series and the runners who compete in the series could be shut-out in the lottery scenario as it exists.

[Ryan]

Yes, that's a huge issue. If a runner is competing in that series, that runner should definitely be given a guaranteed entry. My point is that I also think a certain number of entries should also be made available for runners who meet a certain competitive standard until reasonably close to the race date so a competitive runner who invests a lot into their training doesn't have to commit to the race before knowing whether or not he or she will be ready to run the race up to his or her standards.

[Andrew A.]

It all goes back to the issue of putting on 'running events' (as opposed to races) with the goal of maximizing intake.  What is lost is consideration for and responsiveness to the running community.  Perhaps HARRA could negotiate to get a block of entries reserved for any and all HARRA members which they could then open entry for within two months of race day.

[Andrew A.]

Tangentially related, an interesting article by Jim Gerwick on RunningTimes on the current landscape of megaraces:
http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=19820

[Ryan]

Wow, that's an interesting article. I notice the non-elite competitive runners again getting the short end of the stick. They get to start at or near the front and they get an accurate course and accurate timing, what else would they want? Meanwhile, we'll pay for a couple of hot shots to come in and run a workout and we'll spend big bucks to create the circus that the non-competitive masses want.

It's not a great time to be a non-elite competitive runner. To too many RDs, we're at best an afterthought. It's interesting to see the Rock & Roll organization essentially admit this.

[Andrew A.]

I would say it is simply elucidating, with little further value judgment.  It is no secret that I am just not a fan of megaraces, though what they become when they go from being small, local races to being megaraces is as predictable as what happens when a small business hits big and grows astronomically into a corporation.  There are more races than ever and the vast majority of those are thriving more than ever so it should be easy enough to avoid megaraces and still find quality competition nearby. 

A local marathon has become a RnR (or (non)"Competitor" or whatever) event, yet I never had much of an interest to run it previously -- the take-over just means that I am even less likely to ever consider it.  The main drawback is that the same outfit (or venture capital firm or whatever) purchased a half-marathon that was held in the spring and killed it, so there is one less stand-alone half-marathon around.  Meanwhile, they do have a half-marathon on the same (fall) date as the marathon.  This means that to run the half-marathon owned by them one will have to deal with all the traffic associated with a half-marathon as well as that of a marathon, especially one with an entrant glut like any other RnR event.  More efficient from a business standpoint to use one course on one day, yet a major hassle for participants.  Either way, though, I can still find good spring and fall half-marathons that I would prefer to run.  To me, the challenge of hunting down a good small or medium-sized race is part of the fun, finding something that flies under the radar of people who only know about races that advertise with RW and its ilk.

[Ryan]

Well, I still prefer to look at things on an individual level. Not all small businesses that turn into large corporations lose that small business perspective. I happen to work for one that still treats its employees, clients, and the communities in which it has a presence in many cases better than many small businesses. Of course, this company has always stressed "thinking small" or, in essence, continuing to operate like a small business, just at a larger scale. Likewise, there are large races that still do things like small races, just at a larger scale. They may not be common but they are out there. I've also found that a few words to the right people can make a big difference. For example, in 2005, I had an incident at one of the largest races in Wisconsin. I mentioned it to someone just as a disappointment, not thinking anything of it, and he apparently passed my disappointment along to the right people. The following year, they changed their starting procedure so competitive runners start 5 minutes ahead of everyone else. This gives the competitive runners many of the benefits of a small race at the start line, with a less crowded start and less of a need to pack in like sardines long before the gun goes off, while still allowing for many thousands of participants to filter in behind the competitive runners and also get their chance to run.

There are things that can be done to make these large events more competitor friendly. Saying essentially "they should be happy with what they get" is a sure way to not get those things done.

[Ed]

While I hope that my event grows into something huge - I will not lose sight on the non-elite competitive runners.  Ryan had made two minor suggestions to me and I made changes to adopt those.  It should be about the runners and what they feel is the best possible race.
 
I want to find a person to take over the 5K walk portion and grow that however they feel - but to leave the 5K and 10K to me.  I want a highly competitive race - as we grow I'll make the shifts necessary.
 
I really do not want to put money into an event 5-6 months prior to its run date - too much can happen and they'll just keep your money - too bad so sad.  So why would I ever expect that out of others?

[Ryan]

Ed, I do believe a big event and a competitor friendly event are not mutually exclusive. It's work to balance the needs of all but it can be done. You came up with some creative solutions to the points I raised last year that I think actually lend themselves toward making the event better for everyone.  I'm also intrigued by your idea of having separate individuals responsible for the competitive and non-competitive aspects of your event. While the two aren't mutually exclusive, as some of these big events have proven, it's easy to get tunnel vision when focusing on one and just assume that the other group will be happy with the table scraps. Separating the responsibilities and allowing equal focus on both might have some interesting results.

[Andrew A.]

An update on the original topic: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/run/7057552.html

[Ryan]

Well, it's good to see that they are giving consideration to these concerns. It will be interesting to see, if those 500 entries don't go far enough, how HARRA handles the distribution of them. I would hope that anyone who is in contention for any prize/recognition in the series would get first dibs.

[Andrew A.]

The latest: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/run/7159358.html